The American Collectors of Infant Feeders is a non-profit organization whose primary purpose is to gather and publish information pertaining to the feeding of infants throughout history. The collecting of infant feeders and related items is promoted.

2. Interviews:Example = http://www.oralhistory.org/ Want to do interviews of interesting faculty, students, leaders, “ordinary” nurses? Check out the Oral History Association In addition to fostering communication among its members, the OHA encourages standards of excellence in the collection, preservation, dissemination and uses of oral testimony.

CREDIT https://archives.mc.duke.edu/blog/nursing-materials-displa

3. Stories from the “ordinary:” Example: http://www.murphsplace.com/mother/main.htmlMy Mother’s War – “Helen T.Burrey was an American nurse who served as a Red Cross Nurse during World War I. She documented her experience in both a journal and a scrapbook which has been treasured by her daughter, Mary Murphy. Ms Murphy has placed many of these items on the Internet for people to access and it provides a first-hand account of that experience. Additionally she has a variety of links to other WWI resources.” (quoted from AAHN Resources online)

Critical thinking: Don’t forget to save your own materials. Your life is history! What in your life is most interesting? Have you written it down or dictated it into your iphone voice memo? There is GREAT interest in “ordinary” men and women. Many times items are tossed because they are “just letters” or “only old records,” or “stuff.” Just Don’t Do It.

Are we talking cigarettes? water? coffee? other? Yes, other. In this case about what is sometimes called“filtered” or “unfiltered” literature in the evidence-based medicinepyramid of research evidence. (I have more than one issue with this particular pyramid as a representation of all evidence, but for right now let’s look at filtered information & unfiltered information. Pyramid source: Wikimedia Commons

Filtered is considered stronger–meaning that we can be more confident that literature from this category better supports cause and effect. I agree.

Unfiltered evidence (usually single studies etc) is considered weaker–meaning that we must be more cautious about its accuracy in representing reality. I agree.

My opinion: If the “unfiltered” article is a primary source, research study that has strong design and is published in a peer-review journal then it has been filtered by multiple, expert peer reviewers just to make it to publication.

Thus, when discussing filtered vs. unfiltered one should be very clear on what those terms mean and do not mean.

Critical Thinking: When filtered literature (systematic reviews & critically appraised topics & articles) has been filtered by one individual, is that superior to unfiltered literature in terms of introducing bias? What if the “filtered” evidence is 7 years old and a primary, “unfiltered” source(s) from this year has different findings? What is the relationship between “filtered” and “unfiltered”–after all the “unfiltered” is the pyramid base so what does that mean?

In honor of Nurse Week, I offer this tribute to the avante garde research work of Florence Nightingale in the Crimea that saved lives and set a precedent worth following.

Nightingale was a “passionate statistician” knowing that outcome data are convincing when one wants to change the world. She did not merely collect the data, but also documented it in a way that revealed its critical meaning for care.

As noted by John H. Lienhard (1998-2002): “Once you see Nightingale’s graph, the terrible picture is clear. The Russians were a minor enemy. The real enemies were cholera, typhus, and dysentery. Once the military looked at that eloquent graph, the modern army hospital system was inevitable. You and I are shown graphs every day. Some are honest; many are misleading….So you and I could use a Florence Nightingale today, as we drown in more undifferentiated data than anyone could’ve imagined during the Crimean War.” (Source: Leinhard, 1998-2002)

As McDonald (2001) writes in the BMJ free, full-text, Nightingale was “a systemic thinker and a “passionate statistician.” She insisted on improving care by making policy & care decisions based on “the best available government statistics and expertise, and the collection of new material where the existing stock was inadequate.”(p.68)

Moreover, her display of the data brought its message home through visual clarity!

Thus while Nightingale adhered to some well-accepted, but mistaken, scientific theories of the time (e.g., miasma) her work was superb and scientific in the best sense of the word. We could all learn from Florence.

CRITICAL THINKING: What issue in your own practice could be solved by more data? How could you collect that data? If you have data already, how can you display it so that it it meaningful to others and “brings the point home”?